天美mv天美

The immense scale of the global climate emergency can often leave ordinary people feeling powerless, apathetic, or even dealing with eco-anxiety or broader eco-emotions. While deliberative processes such as climate assemblies have been touted as a way for citizens to influence climate outcomes beyond the ballot box, they have also been critiqued for their limited impact due to the challenges of translating recommendations into climate policy. These critiques are valid and can help to improve future opportunities for climate deliberation, but they don鈥檛 necessarily tell the whole story. In this blog post, we take a granular look at some of the ways in which climate deliberation has impacted people and policies to highlight the undeniable potential of such processes to generate real change.

Creating climate champions

One of the clearest insights from recent climate assemblies is how profoundly they affect the people involved. Climate Assembly UK is one striking example of this. Convened by six House of Commons committees, the assembly brought together 108 people reflecting the UK鈥檚 demographic and attitudinal diversity, including those initially less concerned about climate change. Over six weekends, participants heard from experts, weighed trade-offs, and developed recommendations for reaching net zero by 2050.

By the , 93% of participants said they had learned a significant amount about climate pathways, and nearly 90% felt more confident discussing climate change. Learning from experts and other Assemblies led participants to see issues from new perspectives and, in many cases, change their opinions.

That shift also translated into action, with 91% percent of participants making at least one climate-friendly change in their lives after participating in the deliberation, and nearly half reporting making ten or more climate-friendly changes. These ranged from reducing energy use and changing diets to engaging more actively in climate discussions and workplace initiatives. 

Many participants went on to , with one participant even explicitly citing the Assembly as their inspiration to successfully run for local council to encourage her community to 鈥渕ake some greener choices鈥�.

These outcomes challenge a common assumption that public opinion on climate, or other issues, is fixed and instead highlights that with time, information, and the opportunity to deliberate with others, people do not only become more informed鈥攖hey can even become active champions for change.

Fostering consensus

Despite climate change being a global issue, deliberative climate processes are most likely to succeed when they are designed with the national, regional or local context in mind. In the case of the Edmonton Citizen Panel on Climate Challenges, part of the broader  initiative, this meant designing the process in acknowledgment of greater levels of climate skepticism among residents and significant local economic reliance on fossil fuels. Rather than centering debate on global climate science, organizers framed discussions around local energy choices and community resilience.

This approach proved critical and meant that participants with very different beliefs about climate change were still able to agree on concrete policy directions, from expanding public transit to improving building efficiency. The panel鈥檚 recommendations went on to inform Edmonton鈥檚 Energy Transition Strategy, which was unanimously adopted by city council in 2015.

Deliberation did not erase disagreement but instead it enabled participants to find common ground on actions, even when their underlying motivations differed.  people could 鈥渁gree on action so closely yet have almost opposite beliefs.鈥� 

A similar story is found from the Prairie Farmer & Rancher Forum, a 36-member assembly process held in 2024 to develop recommendations for a resilient and sustainable agriculture sector in the Canadian Prairies. Participants were selected by civic lottery for representative demographic diversity, but also to represent a range of opinions on climate change. While this resulted in some initial tensions, momentum built around common interests and the for the Forum highlights that: 鈥渢he members soon realized that they did not need to agree on the problem in order to agree on good recommendations that make a difference for our industry and the environment.鈥�

These processes highlight a key lesson, that effective deliberations do not require consensus on every aspect of a problem. Instead, they should focus on creating conditions where diverse perspectives can be translated into workable, broadly supported solutions.

From recommendations to policy

In terms of policy impact, the Citizens鈥� Convention for Climate in France, which brought together 150 citizens to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030, tells two stories. The first story that has been the focus of media reports is that  due to the limited implementation of recommendations. However, a more nuanced analysis reveals advances in climate policy that can be directly attributed to the Assembly.

According to , more than 70% of the Assembly鈥檚 recommendations were taken up in some form, either fully implemented or adapted into policy. Crucially, some actions went further than what was initially even considered possible in the process, including the introduction of Europe鈥檚 first ecocide legislation and a world first prohibition on short-haul domestic flights when a train alternative of less than 2.5 hours exists. While the climate impact of these policies is still to be determined, their implementation shows how public deliberation can foster openness to more significant and systems-wide climate solutions. Researchers note that the Convention's  鈥済enerated recommendations that were not consistently articulated within the established political debates about climate governance.鈥� 

Community-centred climate innovation 

Across these examples, we can see that deliberate processes present the opportunity for climate impacts for both people and governments. Beyond those impacts, they also build capacity among ordinary people to work with and through difference, focusing on common ground that can help to generate workable and context-specific climate solutions. Participants leave with a deeper understanding of trade-offs, a greater openness to different perspectives, and a stronger sense of collective responsibility. In some cases, they become advocates and leaders in their communities, while in others, they carry a more informed and nuanced perspective back into everyday conversations. 

Climate assemblies and other deliberative processes are not a panacea, but their promise is undeniable. At 天美mv天美鈥檚 Centre for Dialogue we are in prime position to further realize this promise through our proximity to 天美mv天美鈥檚 strategic research leadership in community-centred climate innovation in combination with our on the ground experience with deliberative climate processes.